Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rufus Wainwright/Archive 1

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When? June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Adding timestamp for future archiving purposes... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Rufus Wainwright/Archive 1 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rufus Wainwright/Archive 1/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Rufus Wainwright.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Rufus Wainwright, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice project

Hi - I am an intermittent WP user but this project is a great one for me. I will try to stop by more often and have watchlisted this page too. Thanks for setting this up. --JeffStryker (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Welcome, and feel free to contribute whenever/however possible. Let's hope more fans decide to join, and we can work together to improve WP articles related to our Matinee Idol! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Wainwright articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Rufus Wainwright articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Active or not is the question

Now this project has been marked as inactive by someone. I wonder what it takes to consider a project active. Of course, if most articles concerning a subject exist and are in quite good shape, there is less work to be done than in the beginning of a project. Still there is always something to be done, something to be improved and there are people here who identify as members of the project. So what is it all about? I don't have experience with wikipedia projects. Are there certain things that have to be done regularly for a project to be deemed active? A curious mind would like to know.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I am not sure how a level of activity is determined. However, adding the tag clearly sparked at least the two of us to "wake up", so perhaps semi-active would be more appropriate. I reverted the most recent edit, so now the project is considered "semi-active". I still need to get around to completing the All Days Are Nights: Songs for Lulu article and working it up to GA status... --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ey, I didn't need to wake up! I was next door impoving Rufus' German Wikipedia article. Yours, --Sylvia Anna (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, then! Keep up the great work, and feel free to let me know if you ever want to work together on improving a Rufus-related article. Eventually, I'd love to get the articles for Prima Donna, along with the articles for all of his studio albums, to good status. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article request: Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall

Since we are in agreement that there should be more discussion regarding project "projects", I want to inform WPRW members that I have recently nominated Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall to appear on the Main Page on April 23. The article already has featured status, and this is a great way to expose Wainwright, the article, and the project to fellow Wikipedians. To view what the Main Page blurb will look like, visit this link: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, and feel free to vote! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb

Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall is the sixth album (and first live album) by the Canadian-American singer-songwriter Rufus Wainwright (pictured), released through Geffen Records in December 2007. The album consists of live recordings from his sold-out June 14–15, 2006 tribute concerts at Carnegie Hall to the legendary American actress and singer Judy Garland. Garland's 1961 double album, Judy at Carnegie Hall, a comeback performance with more than 25 American pop and jazz standards, was highly successful, initially spending 95 weeks on the Billboard charts and garnering five Grammy Awards. For his album, Wainwright was also recognized by the Grammy Awards, earning a 2009 nomination for Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album. While the tribute concerts were popular and the album was well-received by critics, album sales were limited. Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall managed to chart in three nations, peaking at #84 in Belgium, #88 in the Netherlands, and #171 on the United States' Billboard 200. (more…)

It looks like the Shakespeare-related article will make the cut, but I am hoping the Wainwright blurb can be used for a non-specific date or in mid-June (when month the album was recorded, for more date relevance). --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, difficult to beat Shakespeare's birthday. But it would be great if the article would make it in June.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. If you approve of the Main Page blurb, feel free to express support of a non-specific date appearance or a June appearance. Not sure what impact it might have, but at least it shows interest in the article! (It is nice to see activity at WPRW!) --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and re-nominated the blurb for inclusion on the Main Page. If interested, check out: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! The article will be making an appearance on the Main Page! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~12,000 view and a few improvements to the article--I'll take it! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House of Rufus

I went ahead and started an article for House of Rufus, the box set that will be released in July. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tracklist is now available--I will be updating the article soon. There is so much unreleased material, how exciting! Please post any sources relating to the box set here to make sure they are incorporated into the article. Let's hope the article can reach GA status in the near future. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take All My Loves: 9 Shakespeare Sonnets‎

Hoping to continue updating Take All My Loves: 9 Shakespeare Sonnets‎ better than I was able to update the Prima Donna articles. Feel free to help out or let me know if you can think of any content gaps. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read it. Looks good so far.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Art Teacher"

Resolved

I've nominated "The Art Teacher" for Good article status, if any project members want to take a look before the review. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All These Poses Anniversary Tour

I created a stub for the All These Poses Anniversary Tour. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

Just to let you know, you need to have a banner for the Article alerts to work (or a parameter in an existing banner, which lumps all tagged article in a single category). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are subscribed to the Alerts but neither display the alerts nor give a link to them. Giving a link on your main page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Rufus Wainwright/Article alerts) or removed the display=none parameter from the subscription banner would be a good idea.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Rufus Wainwright to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rufus Wainwright/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and importance rating scale

I went ahead and added Quality and Importance rating scales to improve the project, so be sure to check out the Assessment page for more information. Currently, Rufus Wainwright is set at top priority, with his albums + awards list + discography at high priority, songs + EPs at mid priority, and family members at low priority. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding the scales and ratings. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project rules

This is a small project anyway, with a limited scope, with a small number of members and apparently with an even smaller number of actual contributors. But if it is supposed to be a project at all, meaning that people work together on the subject it is about, I think that there should be some rules that make sure that we actually work together and not past each other. And this should go at least as far as discussing an article with project members before nominating it for Good Article or similar things. If people are invited to join this project and contribute to it their opinion should matter. This would in no way belittle the work someone has put into improving an article.

So my rule no. 1 is: Give project members the opportunity to discuss an article before you nominate it for Good Article by posting your intention on the project's discussion page. Give them sufficient time to do so and try to find a concent before you nominate it.

If you have more ideas for rules, please post them here and let us discuss them.

--Sylvia Anna (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While "rules" can be hard to establish, I most definitely agree that collaborative work and participation is essential to the project. I assume you are bringing this up because of the recent nomination of the Rufus Wainwright (album) article for Good status. I know we had a chat on my talk page regarding the article, and I have not disregarded those comments--I am more than willing to continue the discussion on the GA review page, the article's talk page, or my own talk page. I certainly welcome comments from fellow WikiProject Rufus Wainwright members!

I started WPRW before I really understood how WikiProjects work. Often there are too few editors interested in the subject to work on big collaborations, which explains why I often go about editing Wainwright-related articles on my own. That is not my preference, though. Sylvia, I very much hope that we and others can work together to make RW-related articles the best they can possibly be! If we can use this page and article talk pages more often and more effectively, project members can be more involved and have plenty of notification for things like GA review, FA review, etc. Great idea! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you see it this way. There is nothing wrong with going ahead and editing articles as one sees appropriate (as long as soneone doesn't rewrite whole articles without discussing it first). I do this myself. But it would be appropriate and certainly helpful to at least try and discuss projects like Good Article nominations here first.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I think the lack of discussion since the project began was preventing me from bringing issues here. I look forward to future collaborations, and hope that we can work together to improve Wainwright-related articles. Perhaps after Rufus Wainwright, we should attempt promoting Poses to Good status (my previous attempt failed). --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status

@Moxy: Would you still consider yourself an active editor and member of this project? Someone else marked this project as inactive, but are we? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still around watching page.--Moxy 🍁 13:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, Same. I am going to revert. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This project meets the criteria at Template:WikiProject status#Usage:_Inactive_projects.

"Still around" means the project is not defunct, but the project has not been marked as defunct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BrownHairedGirl, you're worrying about this too much. A couple editors prefer the project not be marked as inactive, let it go! I am going to start a couple discussions now so no need for you to worry.---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: activity is a measurable fact. You don't get to decide to ignore the facts.

Feel free to change the status when the facts change ... and take your own advice: stop putting your energy into denying the facts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@Moxy: Would you support a return to semi-active status? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: it would be very much in your interest to rapidly get over your WP:OWNership issues wrt this project.
It would also be very much in your interest to rapidly get learn the distinction between a defunct WikiProject and an inactive WikiProject: see Template:WikiProject status#Usage:_Inactive_projects. I have not marked the project as "dead" or as "defunct".
I trust that Moxy will respect the criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]